Re: God

**DarkRiku** 2011-12-05, 03:52

nsanejokr wrote:He's saying God as a character, or if he were to exist, is evil. He's not stating in a sense that God truly exists. It would be on the level of saying any other character, like Voldemort from Harry Potter, is evil. Making such an assertion doesn't mean that a person making it actually believe that Voldemort exists, at least not physically anyway.

I did mention the IDEA of it.

nsanejokr wrote:I have yet to actually see the Bible used as "proof" without running into the circular reasoning fallacy. If you have a way to beat that hurdle then make a case.

Can you explain?

nsanejokr wrote:Nobody can tell you, because nobody honestly knows. However, just because nobody knows doesn't warrant that you can say, "A deity did it." Even if someone could make an assertion, there's no logical way that you can establish the Judeo-Christian God as the one that made it happen.

At least we both agree on that something happened even if it is different thoughts.

nsanejokr wrote:The power of suggestion.

Suggestion only goes so far. Same goes for coincidences. That even happens in science.

nsanejokr wrote:We gain experience details though the brain. Even if we can't feel out body, are brain will still be working and most likely in extraordinary ways. So long as at least some parts of the brain are still activated, it's possible to have images and experiences processed while someone is "technically" dead.

The body may still be working but what makes us, us really isn't their until we come back. Does this still speak for the ones who show no brain activity and still come back? At least not being able to be monitor by our equipment at least.

nsanejokr wrote:There were, and probably still are, scientists in the opinion that racially-driven eugenics is a fantastic idea. Therefore, if your logic is that Christianity can be viewed as built on a sound basis solely on the fact a brilliant scientist is a Christian you would be forced to also accept that such eugenics is a good idea.

I was really just wanting to clear up the thought that less educated people are the only believers out their. I mentioned it because of previous post I seen. That seems to be other peoples logic on it.

nsanejokr wrote:I would rather also skip the problem of Evil argument. It might be a decent argument as a critique on a fundamentalist conception of deity, but not against every conception of deity.

Ok!

I hope we can all talk as equals instead of one being superior over the other. Smack talking has no place in this thread. If you can't do that then don't post at all.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-05, 03:56

nsanejokr wrote:
]how come so many people who come back from death end up sharing similar experiences

The power of suggestion.

(I am not seeing the whole cope with death the body puts you through if you are technically dead and you can't feel your body to begin with because of it.

We gain experience details though the brain. Even if we can't feel out body, are brain will still be working and most likely in extraordinary ways. So long as at least some parts of the brain are still activated, it's possible to have images and experiences processed while someone is "technically" dead.

I find this a bit short. Not saying you see god in the "white light" but the amount of unexplained supernatural situations are a bit to many to just ignore. Now I'm not saying they are god related but I do feel there is still a layer of reality we have yet to definitely touch/reach with science.

**DarkRiku** 2011-12-05, 04:08

Ultimate lol wrote:
nsanejokr wrote:
]how come so many people who come back from death end up sharing similar experiences

The power of suggestion.

(I am not seeing the whole cope with death the body puts you through if you are technically dead and you can't feel your body to begin with because of it.

We gain experience details though the brain. Even if we can't feel out body, are brain will still be working and most likely in extraordinary ways. So long as at least some parts of the brain are still activated, it's possible to have images and experiences processed while someone is "technically" dead.

I find this a bit short. Not saying you see god in the "white light" but the amount of unexplained supernatural situations are a bit to many to just ignore. Now I'm not saying they are god related but I do feel there is still a layer of reality we have yet to definitely touch/reach with science.

Its up for debate but someone also tried to see if they could weigh the human soul. Thought you might be curious to read about it since you are on the touch with different realities and strange things that happen.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

**T3RCX** 2011-12-05, 04:43

The existence of a "soul" depends entirely on whether or not we have true free will:

1. Assume free will exists and define it as the ability to make an arbitrary choice.
2. All physical phenomena are governed by the laws of nature (i.e., physics and chemistry).
3. Laws of nature are always predictable in that they can be written in a mathematically definitive way.
4. Mathematically definitive expressions do not produce arbitrary results.
5. Therefore, free will cannot exist as long as our governance is determined solely by the laws of nature.

From this we extrapolate to one of two possibilities:
1) There is no free will.
2) Governance of ourselves must be determined in part by something that is not itself governed by the laws of nature (i.e., something "supernatural"). Define this as the "soul."

Proving free will, however, is entirely impossible. One might argue, though, that it is better to assume it does or does not exist.

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-05, 09:36

Before I start to speak with Ultimate, I want to say something to others that are behaving unprofessional here, trying to make this discussion a troll place. I don't care if this thread gets locked or not, I can PM Ultimate anyway. But, for all you that insult other people's beliefs without any arguments, or thinking you have arguments, hate, or simply try to troll others, how you behave to others in life, that is exactly how you will get it back. Maybe not now, not tomorrow, but one day, for sure. And, all of you that think you know stuff, well, think again, maybe you don't know enough. Maybe you have read Bible, but is Bible only Book? Maybe you have read evidences of Evolution, but are they really evidences? (not implying anything, same goes for the ones who believe in the Book) Try to retest your own knowledge before you go into any discussions here (I retest mine everyday). I have read a lot, I never said I believe in God and not read anything else, some other side. In fact, I'm still reading, every day, to be informed more, no matter if that will make me believe even more or less, I read and get informed. You know why? First sentence of Holy Qur'an that God told to Prophet was: "Learn, recite in the name of your Lord who created - Created man from a clinging substance." Only by learning people can know things. If you don't learn you cannot know. And by this sentence God told us to learn, to learn so we can get informed more. The more we know things, the more we will know if he is our Creator or not. But, problem is if we want to know things but don't want to learn. That is where we fail. So, to all of you that think you are so smart that you can tell God does not exist, I will ask you a simple question, have you read the Holy Qur'an? Pretty simple question. Yet, it is rhetorical because I know you have not, your knowledge shown here tells it. Also, do you know what does it mean "Created man from a clinging substance"? Thats a miracle on its own, google it and learn, learn so you can be smarter than you are now, and at least stop to say random things you know nothing about. This all is meant to people who don't believe and have posted in this thread, excluding Ultimate. I have respect for him because even though he did not read Qur'an he does not refuse to learn about the other side, and he knows a lot about his own side.

Also, to vantagesp and Halberdier, you guys are mods here. Why do you troll me, and others who believe? I mean if someone whos job is to keep this place in control cannot control himself at least, what should I expect from this forum? Few last posts you two made were so immature for such a mature topic. You made fun of people who believe. Well, thanks for that, if that is your mod's job, thanks again, you do it perfectly.

Ultimate lol wrote:Wow, we closed the whole previous discussion.

Indeed

Ultimate lol wrote:Now to answer your question and maybe start a new discussion.

First of all, evolutions stats from the first life form. As far as I know the actual start of live is not part of evolution.
Of course there are some theories as to how it work which I will try to explain to the best of my abilities.

For life on earth I know 2 theories. For live in general 1 of those drops.

For life on earth there are theories that the first 1 cell organisms could have come with meteorites. enclosed in the in a sleep state. when landed on earth the started to develop. However if you say life in general that case would drop as that life had to come from somewhere to.

If I remember all correctly, plant type life came firs. Now don't think modern day plant but think something that lives the same way that plant do. Turning CO2 into another product for development. They cam as a response to the high amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the high amount of volcanic activity. one of the by-products of this process was 02 or oxygen. Science considers these 2 part of the magic 3 needed to form life: Water and oxygen. The third one is heat of energy. this comes from volcanic under water raptures. spewing out large amounts of hot material heating water.
Due to all these factors being present a chemical reaction could take place. creating the first carbon based life form. these were one cell only and merely turned the O2 and C back into CO2.
Now as time passes different cells formed turning other material into other stuff. And more complex life form start to develop combing some of these functions, becoming more efficient.
From this point evolution slowly start to kick in. The creatures striving to be more and more efficient in what they are doing. It becomes a survival of the fittest and only the best developed survive and continue.

This is all from the top of my head atm though. I'll have to read in to go more into detail and to see if I remembered correctly.
Other users can add to this or elaborate if they want.

Thing that bothers be is that scientists explored so much about simple living things, and they attempt to create a life from scratch. Even if they connect all things together, and they accurately know the parts of a one cell living thing, they simply cannot. The life does not start at all. Then they tried to do something else. They put DNA of one living thing into the body of the other and the other begins to behave like the one to which belongs the DNA, meaning it became like that one. Still, they did this on already living thing so, it could not mean they created life. Then again, they tried to create at least a virus and they did. Reason is because virus is non living and needs a living thing to live, meaning its just like a former experiment.

Now, seeing how even a simple living cell is so complex, it needs much of coincidence for all of it coming together and forming a life. Seeing it from simplest chemical bonds how they come together forming bigger and bigger structures and at the end forming a life has not so much logic in it from my point of view. I mean there has to be some sort of a path that they go, to form a life eventually. Some natural forces have to exist, many of them, to connect all of those components together. I mean if we put all components needed for a life form in a test tube and shake it infinitely, nothing will happen. They won't connect on their own. Atoms, molecules and bigger bonds will not connect just because we shake the test tube trying to connect the parts. This means there are not natural forces that will make them a path to life eventually. Then it is logical that some outer forces act and make that happen, since life did not start in a test tube, but in far bigger environment like Earth, having many other natural forces that could act and accidentally form a life by connecting those pieces together. For that to happen, just imagine how big the coincidence must be, just for a single bond, a single step, not to mention millions of steps needed to form a life. Its just hard to believe that all those would connect eventually, by chance, because there are no forces that would connect them at some point for sure, making them like some sort of path.

Now, lets take a look is it hard for such a coincidence to happen. I will take just, I repeat, just 3 dices. Now, lets simplify the process of life forming to a simple "if we throw 3 dices at once and get number 1 in each of them we made a simple bond and formed lets say one particle needed for life". Then we will say "each time 3 dices show number 1, we get bigger and bigger bonds which will at the end form a life". Now lets say "we need just 10 of those successes and life is formed". So, we simplified the process of forming a life to that we need 10 times that 3 dices show us number 1, when thrown at once.

Okay, lets see whats the probability of getting number 1 from one dice. That is 16,66%. So when we throw a single dice the chance we get number 1 from it is 16.66%. Now since all 3 dices are independent from each other to get number 1 from all 3 at once we just need to multiply 0.1666*0.1666*0.1666=0.004624076296 now taking this to percentage is 0.462%. It is even less than 1%. Now, you know what it takes to throw 3 dices and that all 3 show number 1. Note that we need to do this 10 times. Well, it is too hard isnt it? Still, no matter that we have such a low chance, when we repeat the process up to infinity we will get it eventually. That is how most people who believe everything happens by chance think. But, with chance is not easy to handle as to repeat the process up to infinity. That is what most people forget or dont know at all. No matter how many throws you have, each throw will have same chance, which is 0.462%. Now, most would say, but at the end it must happen. No, that is not true.

I'll explain it. What most people think is that if chance is 1% and we have 100 attempts, at least 1 attempt will be success (This is what Potus was saying in his example of Lego). This is not the case. Each attempt will have just 1% chance for success. But, if we increase attempts chance raises isnt it? Yes, it is. For 100 attempts 1% chance gets around 63% that one time we will get the success. Still it is just 63%, not meaning that we will probably get it. Again, it may or may not happen.

3 dices are too simple, though. That would probably happen at some time but imagine how complex that process of life is, compared to that, 3 dices look so poor and easy to get. Life being so complex process to create by chance, makes chance for even simplest bonds to happen much less than those 3 dice's 0.462%, much less than this. This is because there are no forces that would naturally make things connect at some point, instead, other forces that have nothing to do with the bonds act together and create coincidences which should somehow make bonds connect. Well, that makes the chance so low, much lower than 0.462%. Seeing it as that, simplest bond needed has almost zero chance. Not to mention millions of those bonds are needed, some more complex some less. But, infinity will get it, at the end, because its infinity isnt it? Well, who says we have infinity? Earth's time is finite, around 4.55 billion years. Even that cannot be used since life on Earth started approximately more than 3 billion years ago. So we have just around 1.55 billion years to deal with. Now, seeing back how complex life is, to form a single one cell life form we need millions of bonds, each of them having very low chance to be connected. 1.55 billion years are not enough to make this happen 100%. Thus, we still call it coincidence (huge coincidence), and not something that would connect eventually.

This is why I'm so skeptic when seeing things happening by chance. Still, many people see that as its so simple task for nature to do. This is why I think something had to guide those processes. More than that, scientists attempted many times to create life by forcing chance, connecting all those pieces by force and yet, noting happens. Same with people who die. Once they are dead, nothing can bring back their body to work again. Even, if everything is okay with it.

Of course we always can say, science is not evolved to this point, to be able to create a life, maybe they still missed something etc. Same with dead bodies not working anymore. Maybe something is missing, we don't know yet. Saying that can be used as argument. Also, saying that no matter how low chances are, they still are chances and are possible. Well, if you say something like you have deck of 40 cards in which you have 3 tour guides and you shuffle it very good, draw 3 cards and all 3 are tour guides, is possible, yea it is. Chances are too low for it to happen but still it is possible, none can deny it. But, its up to people to believe that would happen or not. For some, like me, that is way too complicated to happen by chance, and for some it is not. That is why some people like me believe it was work of God and some say it could also be done alone without Gods intervention, chances are too low but still possible, or it was something else that we have not found out yet.

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 11:48

S.S. Anaconda wrote:
Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

logically speaking a god must exist, potus said some things like that and i imagine he explained atleast one of the 5 proofs of god, (incase he didnt most involve the absurdity of infinite regression, think chicken and egg) which god you choose to believe in and what that entails is your own choice, in terms of gods existance in my opinion, you believe he does or did exist, or your simply being ignorant

I don't think that I'm ignorant because do not believe in God. I believe in evolution.

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-05, 13:47

Amy Cool wrote: Thing that bothers me is that scientists explored so much about simple living things, and they attempt to create a life from scratch. Even if they connect all things together, and they accurately know the parts of a one cell living thing, they simply cannot.
Still, they did this on already living thing so, it could not mean they created life. Then again, they tried to create at least a virus and they did. Reason is because virus is non living and needs a living thing to live, meaning its just like a former experiment.

I am not read in, if scientist ever created life out of nothing. So I cannot comment on this part. The virus I have heard of and I can agree that it is not the true life we are looking for here.

Amy Cool wrote: Now, seeing how even a simple living cell is so complex.

Stopping right here before we start. We are talking about the very first cell here. Which is the most basic form of a cell barely being able to do anything. Do not expect complex DNA chains here.

Amy Cool wrote: it needs much of coincidence for all of it coming together and forming a life. Seeing it from simplest chemical bonds how they come together forming bigger and bigger structures and at the end forming a life has not so much logic in it from my point of view. I mean there has to be some sort of a path that they go, to form a life eventually.

You use coincidence a bit easy to your advantage. The same with odds. You must remember, the only reason we can even question why we form is due to these so called coincidences. Also odds can also be used against you. Using odds. No matter how small there is also a chance it just happen on the first try. No matter how hard something is it could just happen.
Now say the process happens on billions of planets. Maybe we are the only ones that succeeded in this. With smalls odds maybe. But apparently we are just the lucky ones then. You can’t use odds like that if we don’t know all the variables. Not saying this happened, just a mind experiment to see the flaw in “coincidence”.

Amy Cool wrote: I mean if we put all components needed for a life form in a test tube and shake it infinitely, nothing will happen. They won't connect on their own. Atoms, molecules and bigger bonds will not connect just because we shake the test tube trying to connect the parts.

Life did not appear at random. It came to be due to “need” for it. They closed the circle that the earth was forming. Out of this you could say earth had a “building plan” for life. It needed it for a specific function. Also, a tube is stagnant. Life will not form because there is nothing to form life for. Say all the materials form this “life” then what is it suppose to do? There is no reason, so to say.

Amy Cool wrote: in far bigger environment like Earth, having many other natural forces that could act and accidentally form a life by connecting those pieces together. For that to happen, just imagine how big the coincidence must be, just for a single bond, a single step, not to mention millions of steps needed to form a life. Its just hard to believe that all those would connect eventually, by chance, because there are no forces that would connect them at some point for sure, making them like some sort of path.

The first sentence of this quote also helps in odd or “coincidence”. Earth is a lot bigger then a test tube. So your experiment of odds did not happen at one place try after try. No it happen all over earth on millions if not more places at the same time for millions of years. Then the chances on this small coincidence are a lot bigger.

Amy Cool wrote: Now, most would say, but at the end it must happen. No, that is not true.

Must? No. Very likely? Yes.

Amy Cool wrote: I'll explain it. What most people think is that if chance is 1% and we have 100 attempts, at least 1 attempt will be success

Odds are based on numbers. Why is something 1% because out of a million attempts 10.000 succeeded. Leading to an average of 1 successful attempt per 100. Sure during testing it could have failed 1000 times in a row, but can be corrected with 20 in the next 1000. So yes saying 1 out of 100 is likely to be a success is exactly what odds mean to say. It’s not guaranteed to happen but on average it will.

Amy Cool wrote: 1: Life being so complex process to create by chance... 2: Not to mention millions of those bonds are needed, some more complex some less...3:Now, seeing back how complex life is, to form a single one cell life form we need millions of bonds... 4:1.55 billion years are not enough to make this happen 100%.

Ok, I took some small part out of this piece. They should not be to far out of context I think.
1: First life was not overly complex. The cells of back than are nothing compared to what they are now.
2: So millions of bonds might be to much. If not then at least it will for the most part be a repetition of the same bond.
3: see 1 and 2
4: No, not 100%. Maybe we are just the lucky ones. We are just able to question it.

The last point I’d like to make for this comment is that life itself is a catalyst for improving itself. Once life is there, it can only improve. If products of life are worse they will just die off. It’s always, the strongest survives.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 13:58

CheyMcFly wrote:

I don't think that I'm ignorant because do not believe in God. I believe in evolution.

do you believe in a higher power? if so you believe in god...i didnt specify a christian god or any specific god, just that a creator MUST have at some point existed to create the matter that composes our universe

Occultdude17 wrote:

Logically speaking, that is incorrect. The world does not need God. Science explains where the universe, humanity and morality came from, and does not require divine intervention. Furthermore, God defies logic on many levels, due to his contradictory attributes.

In fact, let's set up a scenario to prove that God is contradictory. God is claimed to be:

Omnipotent - able to do anything.

Omniscient - knows everything.

Omnibenevolent - is entirely good.

Unchanging - none of these traits can change.

Now let's pick an act of evil, say... child abuse. God is all-powerful, so he can stop any acts of child abuse from occurring. He's all-knowing, so he knows when it occurs. He's omnibenevolent, so he will choose to stop child abuse when he can. And he's unchanging, so he can't change his nature.

The logical conclusion is that child abuse cannot exist, but the evidence contradicts this. And there are some forms of child abuse that are not "character building", so there's no excuse for letting them occur. We accept as a given that child abuse is in fact evil, so that means the 4 traits we assigned to God are inherently paradoxical, and 1 or more of them must be false.

well...ill answer your post even though it has no basis on mine...if you are talking about a christian god then at one point god agreed to step back and allow humanity to flourish as it may, which explains your evils etc...

but i did not specify a christian god, a benevolent god, or an omnipotent god, just that as i said above, a creator god MUST have existed at some point, which cant be explained by science, we can go back to the big bang, but we have not recreated life or managed to create matter

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 14:17

[quote="S.S. Anaconda"]

CheyMcFly wrote:

I don't think that I'm ignorant because do not believe in God. I believe in evolution.

do you believe in a higher power? if so you believe in god...i didnt specify a christian god or any specific god, just that a creator MUST have at some point existed to create the matter that composes our universe

There is no higher power. At least in my opinion.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 14:21

so where did matter come from?

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 15:03

Amy Cool wrote:Also, to vantagesp and Halberdier, you guys are mods here. Why do you troll me, and others who believe?

Why must you resort to insulting our persons, assuming we are trolling, when trying to proceed with a civil debate? That's bad form.

**Prince Vegeta** 2011-12-05, 15:06

no you were trolling and insult believers of God
saying we aren't smart that's not very mod like
i see you also deleted my post
truth hurts bro you know you and van were trolling us
this topic must end

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 15:27

Axel VIII wrote: no you were trolling and insult believers of God
saying we aren't smart that's not very mod like
i see you also deleted my post
truth hurts bro you know you and van were trolling us
this topic must end

when did they call you stupid?...
this topic must not end. a lot of good topics are being closed because of trolls, and honestly, they aren't trolling. at least I do not think so. we are having a nice debate/conversation on this

if anything occult is trolling...

I might find it entertaining, except that the Bible is poorly written and focuses on the most inane stuff. It's like it was written by 66 autistic 12-year-olds in separate rooms (no disrespect to anybody who has autism).

**Prince Vegeta** 2011-12-05, 15:48

Halberdier wrote:If god exists, then why do all the smart people not believe in him?

Halberdier wrote:So what you're saying is, people who believe in god can't read?

That's terrible! We must help them!

vantagesp wrote:
Halberdier wrote:So what you're saying is, people who believe in god can't read?

That's terrible! We must help them!

Maybe they read too much?

Occultdude17 wrote:
vantagesp wrote:Let people believe what they want to believe, who am I to judge or tell you you are wrong/right. You could believe in Mokey Mokey's for all I care as long as you don't try and push your religon on me.

I'm all for that. If people want to believe in magic, that's their choice. If people are going to shut themselves away in their superstitions and ignore the real world, that's also their choice (bad as it might be). My concern is that they'll drag the uneducated fence-sitters down with them, and then we'll have many people shutting themselves away due to not knowing any better. If we're not allowed to make rebuttals against that, then this topic should be locked and all discussion of religion be prohibited on the forum (sorry I'm forcing you to close so many topics).

these were all insulting us believers of God
i don't like this one bit and this is why im asking that this topic ends

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-05, 16:03

S.S. Anaconda wrote:so where did matter come from?

This is one of the more hilarious things I find about Christians. They are fine with a sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, et cetera, being existing for absolutely no reason, but not mindless, limited energy.

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 16:19

I didn't delete anyone's post, Axel.

**TamACOPY** 2011-12-05, 16:24

Axel VIII wrote:i see you also deleted my post

That was me. Your post was off-topic and more trolling than anything else, so I deleted it.

**Prince Vegeta** 2011-12-05, 16:36

>_> so van and Hal's posts were not off topic?

**Amy Cool** 2011-12-05, 17:05

Troll no1.

Halberdier wrote:If god exists, then why do all the smart people not believe in him?

1. We speak with arguments when we make statements in this discussion, to avoid insulting and I see none of arguments in your post here.
2. Just saying that all the smart people not believe in God without any argument (and there is no argument to have here since people's smartness is not measurable, even if it is you cannot go and measure it for all world)
3. If you took at least as much as to count all the greatest contributors to science you would of know that at least one of them believes in God which would make your statement, again invalid.
Troll no2.

vantagesp wrote:Because, A book can also be... A hat

1. What does this statement has to do in a serious discussion? Answer is obvious.
2. Even a video to spice it more makes it worse.
Troll no3.

Halberdier wrote:So what you're saying is, people who believe in god can't read?

That's terrible! We must help them!

1. Clarifying that van's words were indeed insulting, I mean how can you say that I cannot read just because I believe? You want to say I'm blind or stupid or maybe that I use books as hats?
2. Your second statement makes your question above it rhetorical, meaning its obvious what van wanted to say there and makes you agree with it.
Troll no4.

vantagesp wrote:Maybe they read too much?

Troll no5.

Halberdier wrote:Who could read while the book was on their head? Preposterous.

Troll no6.

vantagesp wrote:Well, you could read it OR use it as a hat. You are not restricted to one.

I don't even have to explain these....

Halberdier wrote:
Amy Cool wrote:Also, to vantagesp and Halberdier, you guys are mods here. Why do you troll me, and others who believe?

Why must you resort to insulting our persons, assuming we are trolling, when trying to proceed with a civil debate? That's bad form.

After all this, you even go as far as to say that I assume you guys trolled me, I mean, where are my feelings in this, and who are you to judge should I be offended or not? Just take a look at the quotes before... Now to tell me that this is bad from me because I was offended by your words, makes you very low as human. I don't need to argue with you guys here nor I need an official apologize, but at least try to do it in your hearts, for your good not mine, if nothing. Thanks in advance and sorry for writing all this because I really felt very insulted there and I wanted you just to know it, nothing more.

@Ultimate lol

I got your point there. Well, I also pointed out about the other side of odds at the end and said it still can be no matter how low the chances are.

Also it is proven that even the very first cell was too complex, not near todays cells but also very complex. Dunno, I can't probably give good picture of how hard it is to coincide to form that cell but I've read that the reason why scientists introduced "life may be coming with a meteorite impact" was because they agreed on chances being so low that they have to look for other reasons why life occurred like that meteorite theory.

What more to say, it is hard to discuss it further since we both can't disagree on some important facts from both sides here and scientists have also no real clues how it all began. But, I'm glad I saw how you see it, interesting though.

As it is hard to use life forming as a proof for both sides either by God or by coincidence since we have no 100% proofs of it, I want go into area which was tested by many scientists and could not be disproved.

Many here did not read Qur'an and many don't know anything about it. Its concept is different from any other Book. There are verses in it that make many scientists around the world question themselves: if that Book is not Gods work then whos is it, since humans work it wasn't obviously. To introduce you more into what I am telling I will link you a very good article to read, instead of reading whole Book (it needs time to read with giving thoughts statements).

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

It is not long, takes few mins to read, it focuses on Embryology and Qur'an telling about it more than 1400 years ago when no studies on embryology could be done (which was also proved by scientist specialized on that area)

It is written by muslims but it is argument based and as objective as possible, using many sources from science and Qur'an. It also gives various comments from scientists around the world, muslims and non-muslims, on topic. None of them could give arguments against verses in Qur'an about Embryology because they were all very accurate and true.

At the end these is a list of scientists commenting about areas they are specialized. If you cannot find it, then here is the link: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

So, I'm curious, what do you think about these things. How can you comment these verses from Qur'an about Embryology being so accurate more than 1400 years ago when no human could know them. Tell me your opinions people.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 18:54

Potus-Mat wrote:
S.S. Anaconda wrote:so where did matter come from?
This is one of the more hilarious things I find about Christians. They are fine with a sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, et cetera, being existing for absolutely no reason, but not mindless, limited energy.

dunno if your talking to me about problems with christians, but thats one of the reasons i struggle with my own faith, although i am fairly well read in the bible so i can debate the matter from both sides. and i have a huge problem with god existing for no reason, but i have a bigger problem with matter or energy existing for no reason, you know what i mean?

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-05, 19:04

S.S. Anaconda wrote:
Potus-Mat wrote:
S.S. Anaconda wrote:so where did matter come from?
This is one of the more hilarious things I find about Christians. They are fine with a sentient, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, et cetera, being existing for absolutely no reason, but not mindless, limited energy.
dunno if your talking to me about problems with christians, but thats one of the reasons i struggle with my own faith, although i am fairly well read in the bible so i can debate the matter from both sides. and i have a huge problem with god existing for no reason, but i have a bigger problem with matter or energy existing for no reason, you know what i mean?

Why? Christians also have a problem with evolution, since it is a complex being being created from mud.
...
...
Wow, that was intolerant of me...

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-05, 20:17

I don't see why I'm being accused of trolling. Actually I do, it's because my posts are controversial and are basically along the lines of "These are the facts, if you ignore them then you're full of it". So go ahead, ignore me. Or don't. Facts do not change based on whether you believe in them.

1) "You're insulting our God."

And who is your God? Most of you refer to your deity by the same name, but I'll bet his/her character traits vary from person to person. The only deities I'm "insulting" are the ones that commit/condone genocide and abuse. The character of Yahweh in the Bible fits that category, as do Zeus and Poseidon. If your deity doesn't, I suggest you find a new name for him/her so that we don't get confused.

2) The Problem of Evil cannot be solved with God "stepping back", because allowing children to be abused would violate both his omnibenevolent and his unchanging traits. Nor can it be solved by saying "it's not the Christian God" because this problem applies to any deity that is all-knowing and all-powerful. The problem can be partially solved by supposing the existence of a Multiverse, where every possible occurred in alternate timelines. God is all-knowing, and would thus know every outcome, and ultimately know that trying to fix everything is pointless because he'd both succeed and fail in separate timelines. This also reduces the usefulness of being all-knowing, as he'd have to work in probabilities and not definite outcomes. Of course, this still raises the question of why an omnibenevolent God would create a multiverse in the first place, as he'd know it involved apathy and confusion on his part.

3) As I have stated countless times, there is no need for a Creator if time and space are indistinguishable at the Big Bang singularity, as General Relativity suggests. This means that causality no longer holds, as particles would be free to move back and forth in time as they please, and thus a Creation is both unnecessary and impossible.

4) The idea of an immaterial "soul" is redundant and flawed. Neuroscience already gives us a pretty good picture of how and why the brain works and where consciousness comes from. I can also tell you from personal experience that the "sense of self" we are used to is just an illusion, and that severe depression will destroy it. You'll be operating on autopilot, having your sound, sight and thinking process in three different rooms and not really talking to each other, until you "wake up" to find that a year has passed and you've got a whole heap of new memories in your head.

How does that fit with the idea of a soul? Also, why can brain damage change people's personalities, if death does not? And don't even discuss the "weighing of the soul" experiment with me, there was so much bias in it that it makes me sick.

5) "Free will" does not mean "free from outside influence". It just means that we consciously decided to do something without being coerced. Suggestion, manipulation, hormones, etc. can all influence our decision to do something, but as long as we are still sober, conscious and not under duress we still have free will.

6) The reason that the Bible is not evidence is because it is unverifiable. We cannot compare it with other forms of evidence to ensure it is true - heck, we can't even compare one Gospel with another! And because we have no way of knowing for sure that God wrote the thing, that does not lend it any further credibility.

7) Physical evidence trumps scripture. The physical evidence contradicts Genesis 1 - 11, therefore we must assume that Genesis 1 - 11 is mythology and nothing more. The physical evidence supports the Big Bang, Evolution, Continental Drift and all those other theories that Fundamentalists don't like. Therefore they are correct, and if you favour scripture over science then you're just silly. That's really what it all boils down to, so I'm not sugar-coating it.

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 20:33

Occam's razor says that the physical evidence and scientific proof listed in scripture is actually just all coincidental.

Saying the bible is evidence of god, because god said the bible was true is textbook circular logic.

An immaterial soul is also cut by Occam's razor, when we observe that its possible that matter can contain the seemingly miraculous complexity as to imbue a living individual with the power of observation, even without anything immaterial entering the picture.

The flaws in the bible can only be overlooked if you already follow it blindly. If you are christian, but accept that the doctrine is flawed, that is one thing (Which could lead to a compromise, but still accepting god, or to further criticism and subsequent abandonment with the deism altogether), but to deny the existence of any flaws at all is impossible without self contradiction.

The big bang was created by the big crunch, when we stopped differentiating from red and blue shifts and all matter was compiled into one singularity, waiting to combust.

Free will is incompatible with a compassionate god, that is also a christian and judging god. The position of free will within Judeo-Christian thought is tenuous at best. If we assume that heaven and hell exist as alternate afterlives based on adherence to religious edicts, god cannot be present in the Judeo-Christian sense. Since that god has imposed a limit on our free will with extortion over your life, using an afterlife of possible punishment, this refutes the notion that evil can exist only to encompass our free will and give us an alternative to doing the morally correct. The Judeo-Christian god’s extortion validates the problem of evil, by showing us that our free will is tenuously respected at best.
For the purposes of this essay, we will be using the Judeo-Christian god as our example and, by extension, the Judeo-Christian heaven and hell. The reasons being, the Judeo-Christian god is believed to have the qualities of being omnipotent, all powerful and able to do everything, omniscient, all knowing and comprehending and omni-benevolent, all loving and loving of everything.
With the three tenets of the hypothetical Judeo-Christian god, one commonly encounters the problem of evil; if evil exists, why doesn’t a god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent stop it? The classic answer to this question is that if man is to truly have free will, evil is necessary, but given its necessity, it is not truly evil. Evil is used to better define ourselves as individuals, such that without it, we would not truly have an opportunity to decide on the good, or stray away, if we were so inclined.
However, a god invoking the punishment of heaven and hell does not respect our free will, making these explanations entirely meaningless. This idea of judgment is deeply woven into the identity of god by the Judeo-Christian faiths, among other faiths. Attributes describe him as one who constantly judges each of us at the ends of our journeys, deciding to send us to heaven or hell.
I understand responsibility as an important part of developing as a human, and I also accept that it’s true that the perceived evils in our lives may contribute to an increase in personal responsibility. For this same reason, a parent may attempt not to interfere with a child, so that the child may learn the consequences of his or her actions. The child might be allowed to scrape their knee from recklessness or get into a characteristically childish fight with a sibling. In these cases, the parent would not need to intervene, if the child would learn the lesson better without it, though it may cause the child pain.
This is one of the ways a parent teaches responsibility to a child, but it is not the only paradigm of parenthood. More commonly, a parent has responsibilities to a child, and will intervene for the child’s wellbeing or learning, rather than leave the child be for the same reason. A parent intervenes regularly on a child’s decisions regarding things as simple as what to wear or what they eat, if only because the child doesn’t know any better. The general belief is that the parent’s insistence one way or another is necessary.
When a child has grown, usually part way through their adolescent years, a parent will impart more and more responsibility to a child. By then, the child is assumed to have the life skills and knowledge needed to start making decisions alone. As the child progresses, the child will reach independence entirely.
The main exception to this is when an independent adult transgresses the law. An adult, under those circumstances, is considered not to know any better. In that case, the law exists to remind them of the correct path, or to aid them in making restitution if they do happen to see the error in their ways.
In some cases, where the mature conduct of an adult can’t be assured, an adult’s responsibility will be removed so as to avoid endangering others. Such cases are often referred to as prison or other forms of incarceration, where free will is limited.
Children or those in the legal system are told what to do on the basis that they do not know any better. With our “god-given” trait of free will, god assumes that we either know better, or at least enough to decide our actions for ourselves. If our free will was truly given to us by a god, then he has been the parent who has allowed his children to start making decisions for ourselves at the time when he originally imparted us with free will.
However, this impression of free will, where we know better and are given autonomy for our actions, is not compatible with our concept of heaven and hell. If a god judges and punishes us for our actions while on earth, but insists we are free, we are still not truly free, but extorted to act in specific ways.
As long as we are each put in the face of an ultimate wrath in the case we act in a way this god does not see fit, we are still regarded with the same contempt as a child or a prisoner that does not know any better. If the compatibility of god with evil requires that we place stock in the necessity of evil for free will, and we are not free because of god’s extortive methods, then the evil in the world does in fact prove that there is no god.

**nsanejokr** 2011-12-05, 20:42

DarkRiku wrote:
nsanejokr wrote:I have yet to actually see the Bible used as "proof" without running into the circular reasoning fallacy. If you have a way to beat that hurdle then make a case.

Can you explain?

I hate to pass everything onto another link, but this explains the situation better than I can:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Occult also summed it up.

Suggestion only goes so far. Same goes for coincidences. That even happens in science.

You mean being constantly bombarded with the idea that you'll go into the light, see God and Jesus, and all other feel-good ideas wouldn't play a factor in how your brain tries to cope with the stress of dying?

The body may still be working but what makes us, us really isn't their until we come back. Does this still speak for the ones who show no brain activity and still come back? At least not being able to be monitor by our equipment at least.

I'll be honest, I don't have a good idea at what you are trying to say here.

Ultimate lol wrote:I find this a bit short. Not saying you see god in the "white light" but the amount of unexplained supernatural situations are a bit to many to just ignore. Now I'm not saying they are god related but I do feel there is still a layer of reality we have yet to definitely touch/reach with science.

First, I would ask what supernatural situations are you talking about, and then ask how you would verify that they are truly "unexplained"?

Now, for the sake of argument, suppose that these events truly are unexplained, but to say that there is a supernatural reason behind something is an "explanation." That would be baselessly filling the gap, which can be a devastating idea. For instance, imagine if humanity decided to accept that diseases and afflictions were caused by demons, witchcraft, etc. instead of investigating the issue and finding out that it was actually microbes which were the culprits.

I'm also suggesting that science can't answer everything, at least not until the technology to answer the questions is available. However, just because it can't answer the questions doesn't mean we can honestly, instantly point out that the supernatural is the culprit. Such a conclusion couldn't be maintained until after some serious investigation has been made. Then, if that conclusion were to hold, those instances would no longer be "supernatural" in nature and instead be "natural" as they could be fully recognized as being a part of nature.

**Potus-Mat** 2011-12-05, 20:46

See now, Joker can make a point that does not offend nor put to sleep!
Anyway, yes, he is correct. If we had left disease as demons, we would be sacrificing lambs instead of taking Penicillin while we drilled holes into our heads to take care of the headaches. Everything has a reason (except for existence, everything, which is kinda ironic), and I am not going to take magic as an excuse. It did not work on my Physics final, and it will not work here.

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 21:13

Occultdude17 wrote:I don't see why I'm being accused of trolling. Actually I do, it's because my posts are controversial and are basically along the lines of "These are the facts, if you ignore them then you're full of it". So go ahead, ignore me. Or don't. Facts do not change based on whether you believe in them.

you did not insult my God or anything. I do not have a god. I just think that what you said was really rude

I might find it entertaining, except that the Bible is poorly written and focuses on the most inane stuff. It's like it was written by 66 autistic 12-year-olds in separate rooms (no disrespect to anybody who has autism).

you don't think that is rude or insulting? and how does saying no disrespect to people with autism make it not disrespectful. I understand you don't like the bible, but do you have to be so rude about it?

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 21:19

I think we should stop dwelling on the specifics of posts made to note how people are incredulous of the bible.

If Jesus was here, he'd forgive them all.

God - Page 4 99qdub

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 21:30

Halberdier wrote:I think we should stop dwelling on the specifics of posts made to note how people are incredulous of the bible.

If Jesus was here, he'd forgive them all.

that's a backwards snuggie <3
haha but yes
believe what you want
Smile

to everyone
honestly its your life.
just don't try to force it upon others

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-05, 22:10

CheyMcFly wrote:you did not insult my God or anything. I do not have a god. I just think that what you said was really rude

you don't think that is rude or insulting? and how does saying no disrespect to people with autism make it not disrespectful. I understand you don't like the bible, but do you have to be so rude about it?

Whether you take offense is up to you. I admit that it would have been more factually accurate to compare the Bible's authors to people with Asperger's Syndrome than Autism. People with Asperger's Syndrome tend to focus on a favourite topic and ignore everything else. For instance, there are whole chapters in the Bible that just list who had whom when, and how long they lived afterwards. Nobody else cares! They could just "many generations passed", which skips over the unnecessary detail and keeps the story interesting.

And I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm allowed to say this.

**CheyMcFly** 2011-12-05, 22:16

Occultdude17 wrote:
CheyMcFly wrote:you did not insult my God or anything. I do not have a god. I just think that what you said was really rude

you don't think that is rude or insulting? and how does saying no disrespect to people with autism make it not disrespectful. I understand you don't like the bible, but do you have to be so rude about it?

Whether you take offense is up to you. I admit that it would have been more factually accurate to compare the Bible's authors to people with Asperger's Syndrome than Autism. People with Asperger's Syndrome tend to focus on a favourite topic and ignore everything else. For instance, there are whole chapters in the Bible that just list who had whom when, and how long they lived afterwards. Nobody else cares! They could just "many generations passed", which skips over the unnecessary detail and keeps the story interesting.

And I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm allowed to say this.

I don't understand, so because they were detailed, that means that they have aspbergers..?

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 22:31

Occultdude17 wrote:
CheyMcFly wrote:you did not insult my God or anything. I do not have a god. I just think that what you said was really rude

you don't think that is rude or insulting? and how does saying no disrespect to people with autism make it not disrespectful. I understand you don't like the bible, but do you have to be so rude about it?

Whether you take offense is up to you. I admit that it would have been more factually accurate to compare the Bible's authors to people with Asperger's Syndrome than Autism. People with Asperger's Syndrome tend to focus on a favourite topic and ignore everything else. For instance, there are whole chapters in the Bible that just list who had whom when, and how long they lived afterwards. Nobody else cares! They could just "many generations passed", which skips over the unnecessary detail and keeps the story interesting.

And I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I'm allowed to say this.

this post shows that you know nothing about the historical context of the old testiment and why it was written...as it happens the geneologies are very very important

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-05, 22:48

@ Chey

No, again I'm just being rude. I have no way of knowing anything about the Biblical authors, except that they sucked at storytelling.

@ Anaconda

I fail to see why. Jesus was descended from David, David from Jacob, Jacob from Noah, Noah from Adam. Most of the people in-between are nobodies and their presence on the list means nothing.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 22:56

because when the old testiment was written, notice, no jesus involved, the hebrew people were in the midst of the babylonian exile, which means they did not have a home and their people were badly seperated. so because of this a geneology that dates back to adam person by person is critically important because it cements them as gods chosen people and gives them an identity when they lost their home etc etc.

now on to john(?) where he works the geneology down from whomever to jesus, is first of all, pointless because it desends into joeseph which whom jesus shares no blood, but its goal is to draw a connection to the traditional geneologies of the old testiment and give crecidence to the new religion, and is designed to garner supporters from people on the fence about joining the new religion and follow christ

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 23:04

Actually, people biblically claim that (the first testament of) the bible was written by Moses. However, the last verses illustrate his death. This paradox leads some to believe that one of his successors wrote the last few verses, or that that successor had transcribed the whole thing, adding his death in.

However, it specifically says that Moses died in such a way that no one saw him die, isolated from everyone else, on Mount Sinai before he could enter the promised land, so one of his successors knowing the specifics and detail of his location at the time of his death would be impossible. Furthermore, if Moses had detailed knowledge of his death beforehand, from the moment the first testament was revealed to him (so that he could write it), when he first saw god, he would have mentioned it, where he does not.

It is most likely that the entire Hebrew first testament was written after the destruction of the first temple and the exile to Babylon by Jewish scholars in Babylon, over 700 years after the latest event in the first testament.

Funny enough, the main Jewish God was not held as the most popular one at the time, even by the Jewish people, who's main god, until the burning of the priests of Israel outside of the temple of Jerusalem, was Ashura, a matron goddess, associated with many local pagan traditions.

By the way, the genealogy that links them to Adam is irrelevant. God didn't select his chosen people until Abraham.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 23:24

Halberdier wrote:Actually, people biblically claim that (the first testament of) the bible was written by Moses. However, the last verses illustrate his death. This paradox leads some to believe that one of his successors wrote the last few verses, or that that successor had transcribed the whole thing, adding his death in.

However, it specifically says that Moses died in such a way that no one saw him die, isolated from everyone else, on Mount Sinai before he could enter the promised land, so one of his successors knowing the specifics and detail of his location at the time of his death would be impossible. Furthermore, if Moses had detailed knowledge of his death beforehand, from the moment the first testament was revealed to him (so that he could write it), when he first saw god, he would have mentioned it, where he does not.

It is most likely that the entire Hebrew first testament was written after the destruction of the first temple and the exile to Babylon by Jewish scholars in Babylon, over 700 years after the latest event in the first testament.

Funny enough, the main Jewish God was not held as the most popular one at the time, even by the Jewish people, who's main god, until the burning of the priests of Israel outside of the temple of Jerusalem, was Ashura, a matron goddess, associated with many local pagan traditions.

By the way, the genealogy that links them to Adam is irrelevant. God didn't select his chosen people until Abraham.

dont know if thats to me or not, but either way, big oopsie on my part saying adam...rookie mistake

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 23:27

When you get to the key points as to why the Jews are/were the chosen people, you also raise another question. If god exists, which god is it, and why is one god more correct or provable than any of the others?

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 23:34

Halberdier wrote:When you get to the key points as to why the Jews are/were the chosen people, you also raise another question. If god exists, which god is it, and why is one god more correct or provable than any of the others?

unless i dont get the topic, i thought it was about the existence of god, which means we're getting off topic?

**Halberdier** 2011-12-05, 23:41

That's not true. Once you question the validity of a specific god, you are brought into a larger forum where you can, in many cases, question the existence of all gods.

Anyone arguing for god's existence must clarify their definition of god, and explain why they chose it; its necessary for a coherent conversation anyways.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 23:47

fair enough, and by god in that post i meant god in a generic sense, in that we were starting with divine beings in general. personally i see god at its most basic as a creator or prime mover, and meld that back into a christian faith, kinda aquinas style. but personally the most important part is the creator aspect. to me god = creator

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-05, 23:49

The genealogy is still irrelevant, because all they have to do is say "We descend from Israel" and no further questions need to be asked. No point tracking everybody's family tree.

And a Creator is still unnecessary, due to the merging of space and time at the Big Bang singularity.

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-05, 23:51

Occultdude17 wrote:The genealogy is still irrelevant, because all they have to do is say "We descend from Israel" and no further questions need to be asked. No point tracking everybody's family tree.

even after its explained you dont understand the grounding principal family has for a community in exile, and its importance when writing a history...because thats what the old testiment of the bible is, a history of the hebrew people

**Ultimate lol** 2011-12-06, 04:29

Amy Cool wrote:
As it is hard to use life forming as a proof for both sides either by God or by coincidence since we have no 100% proofs of it, I want go into area which was tested by many scientists and could not be disproved.

Many here did not read Qur'an and many don't know anything about it. Its concept is different from any other Book. There are verses in it that make many scientists around the world question themselves: if that Book is not Gods work then whos is it, since humans work it wasn't obviously. To introduce you more into what I am telling I will link you a very good article to read, instead of reading whole Book (it needs time to read with giving thoughts statements).

http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

It is not long, takes few mins to read, it focuses on Embryology and Qur'an telling about it more than 1400 years ago when no studies on embryology could be done (which was also proved by scientist specialized on that area)

It is written by muslims but it is argument based and as objective as possible, using many sources from science and Qur'an. It also gives various comments from scientists around the world, muslims and non-muslims, on topic. None of them could give arguments against verses in Qur'an about Embryology because they were all very accurate and true.

At the end these is a list of scientists commenting about areas they are specialized. If you cannot find it, then here is the link: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

So, I'm curious, what do you think about these things. How can you comment these verses from Qur'an about Embryology being so accurate more than 1400 years ago when no human could know them. Tell me your opinions people.

The concept is pretty interesting yes. But I’m not fully convinced here. First of all some lines can be interpreted different and a bit more generalized.
And how cruel this may sound. All these stages could have been found out with “research” in that time.
But I must admit it still makes a pretty good case.

As for the discussion. It seems like the topic picked up more mature so we can comment a bit broughter.

Halberdierl wrote:
The big bang was created by the big crunch, when we stopped differentiating from red and blue shifts and all matter was compiled into one singularity, waiting to combust.

Could you elaborate on this. If read or seen stuff on this topic a long time ago but I can’t remember how the theory went again.

nsanejokrl wrote:
Now, for the sake of argument, suppose that these events truly are unexplained, but to say that there is a supernatural reason behind something is an "explanation." That would be baselessly filling the gap…

I'm also suggesting that science can't answer everything, at least not until the technology to answer the questions is available. However, just because it can't answer the questions doesn't mean we can honestly, instantly point out that the supernatural is the culprit. Such a conclusion couldn't be maintained until after some serious investigation has been made. Then, if that conclusion were to hold, those instances would no longer be "supernatural" in nature and instead be "natural" as they could be fully recognized as being a part of nature.

I’m not saying everything we don’t understand is just magic. Just saying a category of unexplained phenomena might in the future be explained by a new part of reality we have yet to discover or proof.
Also not saying that has to be done with the current scientific supplies/knowledge.

**Halberdier** 2011-12-06, 15:14

Ultimate lol wrote:
Halberdierl wrote:
The big bang was created by the big crunch, when we stopped differentiating from red and blue shifts and all matter was compiled into one singularity, waiting to combust.

Could you elaborate on this. If read or seen stuff on this topic a long time ago but I can’t remember how the theory went again.

God - Page 4 Big-crunch-theory-big-bounce

God - Page 4 Big-crunch-open-and-flat-universe

The energy from the combustion of the singularity, which we call the big bang has been propelling the universe further apart. In general, it is still expanding with that energy.

On the other hand, eventually that energy will have been expended, and the universe will implode once more, into a series of amalgamating, increasingly denser black holes, until it once again achieves the singularity, and explodes again.

**T3RCX** 2011-12-06, 15:39

Note that the Big Crunch Theory is currently not observationally supported.

**calhoun1389** 2011-12-06, 17:11

I do not worship any gods, nor will I until they make their presence known by appearing before the masses and demonstrating their reality warping abilities.

If I were, however, to subject myself to any religious beliefs, the only approach I even remotely agree to is that which is demonstrated in the TV show Supernatural. It makes the most sense to me in terms of the existence of gods while at the same time not trying to deny the theory of evolution.

For those who have not seen the show, their purposed theory is that all gods exist and none are truly the only correct answer. No god rules the earth, nor created it or humans, instead they are simply deities that reside on the earth and do as they please. The Christian God is still the most powerful, (second only to Death himself) but not the only deity in existence, he also does not command that everyone obey his "rules" and attack everyone who doesn't agree with him.

Then again, according to the plot, he got fed up with humanity's corruption and left heaven to live on earth as a normal person. This lead to a war between the angels in heaven (which is nothing more than an alternate dimension) with one side trying to jump-start the apocalypse while the other side wants to save humanity.

**Adept VantageSP** 2011-12-06, 18:22

This topic is now about the admin "God".

**DarkRiku** 2011-12-06, 18:54

vantagesp wrote:This topic is now about the admin "God".

This topic was supposed to be about the Christan God. Should I edit the title?

**S.S.A.** 2011-12-06, 19:01

yes, particularly because of the talk on existance of got as an entity in and of itself, and that bit of talk on the hebrew god

**Occultdude17** 2011-12-06, 19:20

There seems to be a bug on this webpage that is making my browser refresh every 5 seconds.

**nsanejokr** 2011-12-06, 19:59

Ultimate lol wrote:I’m not saying everything we don’t understand is just magic. Just saying a category of unexplained phenomena might in the future be explained by a new part of reality we have yet to discover or proof.
Also not saying that has to be done with the current scientific supplies/knowledge.

We can entertain such an idea as a theoretical possibility. However, too many accept such possibilities as fact.

For instance, many believe in an afterlife of some kind. However, there is no concrete idea what this afterlife consists of in terms of location, how we experience it, etc. Nevertheless, so many people talk like it as a reality.

Such a possibility may turn out to be a reality, but until then assuming some a reality is the true one is incredibly foolish.

The idea of a deity(s) is also such a case. We may think it is possible that a deity or some other intelligent being created existence, but at the same time there isn't a legit way to establish such a being's existence. While theoretically there is the possibility that we may one day be able to verify such a being's existence we do not have the right to actually establish it.

That of course doesn't stop people from trying to establish such a being's existence, as evident by all the religious texts that have been written. Christians would take a text, the Bible in this case, and then use it as a proof that their deity exists. However, Hindus also have their religious texts to establish their deities' existences. Both are not likely to exist, because each text doesn't even verify the other.

Then, one may argue that all these religious people are actually worshiping the same deity(s), but in different forms. However, given the vast differences in personalities and values, this is incredibly unlikely. For instance, the Christian god values the lives of only humans, with all other animals meant for the use of men. Yet, under Hindu doctrine, every life is sacred, human or not, and therefore should be treated with respect. Each religions' ideals on afterlife reflect this, as Christianity has the idea that humans have a soul that travels unto another world after this while Hindus have the idea of reincarnation where all lives are reborn into a new life-form within our world.

Given these varying conceptions of deity, it's more likely that humans are exploiting this gap in knowledge by collecting their values and desires into a character that they could use as a representation to idolize. I don't know if there is a truly concrete explanation to why such a practice occurs, but if I had to guess it might be due to the idea of the Release of Burden. In other words, humans may have some sense of spirituality for the same reasons why we like well-lit places: It alleviates a stress that plagues humanity, as pitch darkness is unsettling for us sense we our visual creatures with terrible night-vision. So, we can attribute our feelings and moral sense to gifts from the divine instead of having to put time and effort into cracking what actually causes them.

Sorry if that is too much of a wall of text. I guess I felt like unloading a bunch of ideas or something. Hopefully it's at least easy to decipher.

Sponsored content

Do you believe?